Ride height ?

[firehawkclone]

6.1.2 Ride Height (AI)

Minimum ride height is 5 inches, to be measured at the lowest point of the rocker panel, but not to include

welded seams or fasteners. This does not include splitters, exhaust, torque arms, side skirts or other

components.

 

How will this be measured? Will they just slide a tape measure down the rocker, or pick a point say 3" in from each tire and measure?

 

The reason i ask is, I have a 3" section that doesn't make it. I think my car is bent!

[tacovini]

This is the ride height measurement method I would like to move to, but it will require some vehicle research this year and rules revisions in the outyears.

 

 

Thoughts?

 

-=- Todd

[jrsmotorsports]

i think that would work, however because the rule does not include tq arms, side skirts etc its going to be hard to do as many cars will have lower exhaust, etc which the sliding bar in the video would bump into, you could make individual sides and make them telescoping so you can adjust to each cars rocker area and slide back and forth, but the bar under the whole car does not work for ai/aix

[nape]

Thoughts?

 

-=- Todd

 

I'd rather leave the rules the way they are and see how parity continues. I'm not totally against the idea, but I don't like using time and energy to make the car legal to new rules instead of optimizing it for the current rules (ex. 2011 dash rule).

[GTO1]

I am also good with the way the rules are now.

[Pat L.]

Guys, Todd is right, the SCCA Pro and Grand Am way to measure ride height is an absolute. There is no "kinda sorta complies" scenerio with it unlike what we have now. It should be the only way to measure ride height. 3" min ride height and pass a fixture under the car to check compliance. Done.

 

The min ride height should include all aero as well, IMO.

[nape]

Guys, Todd is right, the SCCA Pro and Grand Am way to measure ride height is an absolute. There is no "kinda sorta complies" scenerio with it unlike what we have now. It should be the only way to measure ride height. 3" min ride height and pass a fixture under the car to check compliance. Done.

 

The min ride height should include all aero as well, IMO.

 

Try running an old SBC with a Canton pan and see how you feel about the 3" rule. I had to skid plate my oil pan last season. If you guys use the 3" rule, there will be 3-4 things on my car that I'll have to change.

 

Trying to turn AI into a professional series will be the death of it. Other then a select few, there's a reason the guys who run AI don't run Grand Am, we don't have the money.

[D Algozine]

I see TJ's point.

Just throwing out an idea. How about picking two frame locations, front and rear on each type of car, and specify the minimum for each location on each car. There really are only a few types of cars in AI. Have two pieces of aluminum templates, per car. It either fits under the car at the designated points or it doesn't.

I don't know the specifics of the cars, but you may be able to use the same ride heights for several types of cars. Or maybe just have a one front and one rear location on each car, but use the same template.

 

Fox/SN95 Mustang

S197 Mustang

3rd Gen F Body

4th Gen F Body

5th Gen F body

GTO

maybe a few others

[firehawkclone]

4th gens are really bad for exhaust clearance, unless you have alot of time and/or crew to make room for it! I also can't use sub frame points, they are bent to hell from jacking the car up on them.

 

With all the things that can bend the sheetmetal on are cars over it racing history, i was hoping for exact points to measure at. Say 3 to 6" in from each wheel opening. This is very easy to do with no extra stuff other than a tape measure, which every tech will have anyway.

 

Something standardized we all can use.

[tacovini]

Good discussion. You guys are on the right track.

It needs to be something absolute....but also needs to take the cool AI things we already have done to our cars into consideration.

 

There's a compromise out there somewhere without having to "optimize cars".

 

I believe we need to consider the existing torque arms, side skirts and such that will remain in the series...but somehow come up with a universal absolute low point for all cars....or a new universal absolute measuring method for all cars.

 

I don't have the answer and we have a lot of really smart racers in this series. So, we'll be doing our homework this year, and we want to continue to hear your thoughts for the future.

 

-=- Todd

[Pat L.]

We had to put a skidplate on our oil pan too. And guess what, our collectors are really low and so are our trailing arm pickup points. So do you know how we could comply with a 3" or 3.5" absolute min ride height rule? Raise the car.

 

And I think ditching those whacky side skirts and splitters that hit the ground isn't a bad thing. Like some would say about getting rid of the Mustang SS.

[nape]

So do you know how we could comply with a 3" or 3.5" absolute min ride height rule? Raise the car.

 

And I think ditching those whacky side skirts and splitters that hit the ground isn't a bad thing. Like some would say about getting rid of the Mustang SS.

 

Pat, that's the easy answer, but I think we all know that it will inspire a lot of re-work to optimize the car to the new rule. I'm not just jabbing at you and Troy with that comment, I include myself in it.

 

As far as getting rid of splitters and side skirts, it wouldn't bother me since I have neither. Thinking about the appearance of the class and the fact that many cars already have them, it wouldn't be a smart choice. Also, the line between CMC2 and AI is already blurring with the dash rule. If we eliminate the splitters and skirts, the cars will be nearly identical appearance wise (CMC2 is allowed a small wing if memory serves me right). At that point, it's 30-40RWHP, suspension, and weight is the difference. So much for having distinction between the different pony car classes.

[tacovini]

Good points, TJ.

 

(This is a pre-emptive block...)

 

While Pat injected a little bit of frosting on his post, I don't want this thread to turn into a pig-pile on him or anyone who has a different opinion.

 

Again...let's keep it constructive guys..

 

-=- T

[Pat L.]

Sorry, let me clarify: I'm not for getting rid of splitters or side skirts. Just the splitters and side skirts that are hung down an inch off the ground. Especially if it means we can adopt a ride height rule that makes sense.

[T&A Racing]

Seems like the current rule, with just a small add such as measured x inches behind front wheel, and a simple tool like

 

 

http://www.rebcoperformance.com/catalog/item.asp?id=509&catid=11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

would keep it pretty simple.

 

Just trying to keep it simple and cheap.

[ST#97]

Dave A. speaks so well again.

 

for reference again Todd, my off the shelf parts from the aftermarket we are trying to promote at 6" of ride height as currently measured....header flange is 2.2" off the ground, oil pan is 2.6" off the ground, maximum K-member is 2.5" of the ground and my skid plate is 2.3" off the ground at best. So please read that IF I were at 5" of min ride height, my oilpan would be 1.6" off the ground...

 

personally, if you can't modify the floor pan, minimum ride height on an SN99 mustang is essentially about how much is the driver willing to put at risk from contacting the ground. I know John George's body in white was going to need custom headers to get the flanges off the ground. They were barely over an inch off the ground at the 5" ride height with BBK headers on a SBF. This "bar under the car" BS will not work.

 

BTW...clarification on the rule...driver in the car or not?!

[firehawkclone]

I did my R/H with driver. I did solve my problem, raised the car and a BFH.

[Al F.]

Everything in the design/build of a race car is a compromise, including ride height. I like the concept because its flawless in the tech shed. Its also already been done so its not exactly recreating the wheel. The devil is in the details, ie. what should the magic number be and are there any exclusions (exhaust for example).

[T&A Racing]

Directors and other decsion makers,

 

 

Significantly changing the ride hight rule to be a ground clearance rule could be highly problematic for existing cars. I don't think I have enough room to even raise my spring perches up high enough to run a bar under the car at 4 or 5 inches, maybe 2 would be fine.

 

While consistent enforcement should be part of all the rules, making it easy or grand am like at the expense of the racers aka customers of NASA is a flawed theory on many levels.

 

I think Dave made an excellent point, our "bolt on parts" are going to have some parts of our cars pretty close to the ground, and not just aero tyype stuff.

 

We have a lot of smart talent in our sport and I am confident we can find a simple solution to measure ride hight in a consistent manner without all of having to re-build major parts.

 

Please let's go racing and leave the rules alone.

 

Thanks

Mark

[tacovini]

Dave A. speaks so well again.

 

for reference again Todd, my off the shelf parts from the aftermarket we are trying to promote at 6" of ride height as currently measured....header flange is 2.2" off the ground, oil pan is 2.6" off the ground, maximum K-member is 2.5" of the ground and my skid plate is 2.3" off the ground at best. So please read that IF I were at 5" of min ride height, my oilpan would be 1.6" off the ground...

 

personally, if you can't modify the floor pan, minimum ride height on an SN99 mustang is essentially about how much is the driver willing to put at risk from contacting the ground. I know John George's body in white was going to need custom headers to get the flanges off the ground. They were barely over an inch off the ground at the 5" ride height with BBK headers on a SBF. This "bar under the car" BS will not work.

 

BTW...clarification on the rule...driver in the car or not?!

 

Thanks for the references, Matt it does help the discussion. Those are very real considerations and over time, I think we have incorporated them into the ruleset.

"Minimum ride height is this...but don't measure, this, this, this, this, this and this."

 

Using the references above, are we concerned or do we want....

1) An oil pan 2.6" off the ground increasing the possibility of oiling the track and costing track time? (Competition)

2) A K-member that is 2.5" off the ground increasing the chance of damaging the track or the car perhaps preventing a showing for Race 2? (Track Time / Car Count)

3) The need for custom headers to get flanges off the ground? (Cost)

4) One-time front splitters .75" off the ground? (Maintenance/Cost)

 

Have these clearances become an "aw shat" at a new track where setups and track issues were unknown?

 

Let's think outside the box a bit....with an absolute min. ride height, the front to back bar could work...but as Fernandez mentions, the magic # would have to be set to a more realistic lower minimum (2"? 3"? 4?..).

Right now...dragging exhaust, bodywork & suspension is OK...as long as the chassis is at the right height...(if tech can actually get a good measurement.)

 

Are we concerned or do we want that?

 

Thanks for the honest feedback....

 

-=- Todd

 

DISCLAIMER - The rules silly season is over. We are not going to change a thing for 2010. I do not have any foregone conclusions, but I do have some concerns and I want to air them out a bit. What do you guys think? Keep it coming...

[T&A Racing]

Seems like dragging stuff, wouldn't be the best way to set a car up to go fast. Not sure it is a real problem to solve. I don't recall seeing any car dragging stuff or sparks flying so yea I say set ride hight something we can measure from a known point at the bottom of the rocker and assume everyone wants to go fast and will keep stuff from hitting the track.

[MikeP-99Z]

I have serious exhaust clearance issues on my F-body with off the shelf parts. Part of the problem is also enhanced by the DS safety loop. The flange from the headers sits about 2"-2.5" off the ground depending on where I have my ride height set. The middle of the exhaust is around 2" off, and the dumps are around 2.5-3" after some re-engineering.

 

I've considered redoing the entire exhaust configuration with oval tubing just to get the whole thing 3" off the ground - not cheap, and I would still have the header flange height issue.

[reds]

I think the rule is great the way it’s currently written. It’s easy to understand and easy to check at the track.

 

For what it’s worth, the Fox ride height is usually set by the rear frame rails over the axle

[Grizlbits]

I think the rule is great the way it’s currently written. It’s easy to understand and easy to check at the track.

 

For what it’s worth, the Fox ride height is usually set by the rear frame rails over the axle

 

subliminal hint/ I agree, that rule rocks. Those guys kick ass. They are smart people. We should never question them. The rules are perfect. They are the best series rules I've ever seen. There is nothing to see hear - move along, move along. /subliminal hint off

 

As a competitor, not as a series director, I have the same problem with some crappy headers that hang down too low on the old car. I am not paying to fix them, it aint worth it.

 

As a director and competitor, I haven't seen anyone even close. Usually the driveshaft hits in the tunnel in fox body Mustangs when approaching critical mass, along with the axle as Reds mentioned. Is this really a problem at all? Has anyone ever been called out on this? Do you feel that we have someone too low giving them an advantage? Is anyone even close on height; or are we all just bored waiting for race season (excludes you guys in texas & cali)

[kbrew8991]

is the issue with the tub/unibody getting too low to the ground, or the rest of the components getting too low to the ground?

 

Write the rule around that...